Archaeologia Polona, vol. 50 : 2012(2019), 85–109 PL ISSN 0066 - 5924 Scientific Capital after 1945 in German Archaeology – Wilhelm Unverzagt and the Archaeology of Hillforts Susanne Grunwalda Strong continuity is visible in German archaeology between the 1930s and 1940s and the years after 1945. How can this be explained in the face of the total exchange of political structures ideologies and protagonists? In my opinion, there are two reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly: the stability of the network of the German archaeology especially and of related German disci- plines in general. These networks were strong enough to outlive the dictatorship and the war and most of the protagonists were flexible enough to gain from them. The second reason is that some fields of research were more attractive than others and absorbed money, attention and support. Scientists in these fields became influential in the archaeological network and were supported by their colleagues. They became able to transfer their topics into the frameworks afforded by the new political and scientific systems as a kind of scientific capital. Hillfort research was one of these successful fields and Wilhelm Unverzagt (1892–1971) was one of the most influential pro- tagonists of it. This paper will illustrate a strong continuity in East German archaeology before and after 1945 on the basis of his work at the German Academy of Sciences in East Berlin. KEY-WORDS: history of archaeology, East Germany, hillforts, Wilhelm Unverzagt The year 1945 and the period after the end of the Second World War have been considered until today not only as a political turning point of the German and European history but also as a caesura in the history of the study of German pre- and protohistory (Kossack 1999: 92; Schnurbein 2002: 16–17; Schachtmann et al., 2012). Directly after 1945, discussions of the topic had to represent this period as a restart of German Archae- ology. The authors wished to show that after the War, there was a continuity of the design and goals of research from the time before 1933. They thus defined the years of Nazi dominance between 1933 and 1945 merely as a break in a good, honorable tradition (Jakob-Friesen 1950; Werner 1945/1946). But modern investigations about the develop- ment of German archaeology identify descriptions like these as useful politically oppor- tune constructions. These investigations teach us that the political chronology does not always directly fit the historiographical chronology of archaeology. a Independent researcher; e-mail: [email protected] 86 | Susanne Grunwald After 1945, most German archaeologists would describe the research before 1933, in the 1920s and early 1930s, as politically neutral and purely scientific. Such statements ignore and deny the impact of nationalism and revanchism on archaeology especially on the Western and Eastern border of Germany during the period between 1918 and 1933 (Grunwald 2017a). Likewise, such views omit to take into account the method- ological, ideological and personal continuities from these times into the late 1930s and early 1940s. But it was in these years that the institutionalization of German archae- ology progressed, and the network was more differentiated and influential then in the 1920s. That institutional level and that social prestige of established scientists had to be defended after 1945. To describe their own discipline as objective and devoid of all ideology was therefore an opportune strategy. The context for the creation of such views was the process of denazification, when German archaeologists and scientists of related disciplines had to evaluate each other (Ash 2010). Archaeologists had to assess their own discipline because there was a lack of specialists from outside the German archaeologist network for the evaluation of the scientific work done during the period of National Socialism. It was in this specific framework that opinions about the neutral, unemotional and methodological character research before 1933 were created and expressed. And in this way, the traditional design of research was legitimated as the basis for the new start after 1945. In eastern Germany, hillfort archaeology was one of the most developed and insti- tutionalized fields of traditional archaeological research. In the period after the War, Wilhelm Unverzagt transformed it into a modern systematical field and was able to use it as a means of access to institutionalized science of a new level – at the German Academy of Sciences. This paper will begin with presenting a brief overview of Unver- zagt’s activities before 1945 that were the point of departure for archaeology in East Germany (GDR) after 1945. This will be followed by a description of Unverzagt’s strategy to reorganize it at the former Prussian Academy and his main scientific capital for it, his former hillfort archaeology. Also discussed will be the first results of the systematical hillfort archaeology in the Early GDR and its continuous interactions with the Polish archaeology. INTRODUCTION There was never a central methodological, structural or ideological institution rep- resenting German archaeology before the end of the 1940s. Instead, it is possible to describe some bigger influential circles of some archaeological societies, institutes or commissions with similarities and differences. But the picture would be always incom- plete and unclear without a mention of the different local and regional scientific partners and institutions of research funding. Scientific Capital after 1945 in German Archaeology – Wilhelm Unverzagt… | 87 One of the most influential circles of the East-German archaeology was the Asso- ciation for Research into Pre- and Protohistoric Fortifications in Northern and Eastern Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Erforschung vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Wall- und Wehranlagen in Nord- und Ostdeutschland), founded in 1927 by Carl Schuchhardt (1859–1943), Unverzagt (1892–1971) and Gerhard Bersu (1879–1929; Fehr 2004; Grun- wald and Reichenbach 2009). The association united the heads and most influential archaeologists in East Prussia, West Prussia, the so called Borderland, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, Free State of Saxony, Pomerania, Western Pomerania (Mecklen- burg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz), Brandenburg, Berlin, Province Saxony, Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck and Hamburg. Until 1932/1933, most of the hillforts in these areas had been inventoried and some excavations had been done. Unverzagt’s investigation of Zantoch (Santok) on the river Warthe (now Warta) between 1932 and 1934 was the most famous hillfort excavation in the eastern part of Germany (Fehr 2004; Grunwald 2009a; e.g. 2012)1. The archaeological monument was in danger and Unverzagt developed a successful cooperation near the German-Pol- ish border in the early 1930s to investigate the site with the conservative historian and scientific manager Albert Brackmann (1871–1952). At the time, Unverzagt was Director of the Museum of Pre- and Protohistory in Berlin and head of the archaeological monument conservation for the Prussian Province of Brandenburg. He applied very successfully for money for the project with the argument of the everlasting struggle to control Zantoch. After 1918, one effective strategy and goal of the easter German archaeology was to show the German – Polish relationship as a long story of conflicts between strong German states and powerless Slavic tribes and their early states. Zan- toch seemed to be the perfect illustration of that. In very close cooperation with Albert Brackmann, the intellectual head of the Eastern Research (Ostforschung) in Berlin, at Zantoch Unverzagt tried to prove the tribal differentiation of the West Slavs into Slavic Pomoranians and Polanie and their eternal hostility (Haar 2000; Wöllhaf 2008). In his applications for the project Unverzagt, already anticipated the result: ”The history of Zantoch shows absolutely clearly the everlasting enmity of the Slavic Pomoranians against the Polish Kingdom”2. In connection with his excavations, Unverzagt designed and arranged the reconstruction of a medieval tower of the hills of Zantoch as a little museum. Opened in 1935, the tower was to be a symbol of the long-contested place and region on the border with Poland (Grunwald 2017b; Fig. 1: a–b). 1 The complete documentation of the 1932–1934 campaigns in Zantoch and of the reconstruction of the tower on the Schlossberg, including all diaries and most of graphic documentation, photographs and correspondence as well as a small amount of ceramic finds, are preserved at the archive of the Museum of Prehistory and Early History in Berlin (Grunwald 2009a; 2012b). 2 Unverzagt/Generaldirektor Staatliche Museen, 27.9.1932: SMB-PK/MVF, File I A 32, Bd. 1. 88 | Susanne Grunwald Fig. 1, a–b. Unverzagt, on the right sitting on a barrow, and two men look across the little bridge at the northwest side of the tower reconstruction. Schlossberg of Zantoch. Picture: June of 1935 (SMB-PK/MVF F 4635; SMB-PK/MVF F 4636). Zantoch became an influential model in many ways: a) for a routine to apply money from scientific associations as well as from political and local sponsors; b) for stimulating and satisfying the expectations of the sponsors and c); for cooperating with well established sciences as historiography for example (Grunwald 2016). But together with the results of Unverzagt’s excavations of the hillforts at Lossow, Reitwein, Lebus and Belgrade, it became a scientific treasure, a scientific